Constitutional amendment would legalize medical marijuana in Nebraska

Voters could choose to legalize medical marijuana in November under a proposed constitutional amendment heard Thursday by the Judiciary Committee.

Introduced by Sen. Anna Wishart of Lincoln, Legislative Resolution 293CA would grant Nebraskans the constitutional right to “use or consume medicinal cannabis products, regardless of form, to treat or relieve any medical condition or illness.”

If passed, the constitutional amendment also would give the Legislature regulatory authority over medical marijuana, but only if those regulations preserve the right of citizens to consume the drug for medical reasons.

“I am back this year with a second option,” Wishart said, referencing the amendment. “If some of my colleagues are uncomfortable voting in support of a medical cannabis system, then at least they should let their constituents have a vote.”

LR 293CA is Wishart’s second attempt to pass medical marijuana legislation in Nebraska. Her previous bill failed to overcome a filibuster in 2016.

In her statement to the eight-member committee, she cited strong support and citizens’ needs for medical marijuana.

She noted of those polled, voters across the political spectrum expressed strong support.

Wishart’s frustration with the Legislature’s failure to act was matched by those who spoke in support of the amendment.

“Our family has been begging and pleading with all 49 senators on our Legislature for five years now,” Shelley Gillen of Bellevue said in support of her son who suffers from Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

Gillen said the rare disorder causes several types of seizures and affects cognitive development. Her son is 15 now, but his development is comparable to that of a 2-year-old, she said.

“Doesn’t his life matter?” she asked the committee. “Why are we more concerned with protecting the potential abuser, rather than those who are innocently sick and suffering?”

In total, 14 citizens spoke in support of the amendment, often with impassioned pleas. Many cited the dangers and addictive nature of pharmaceuticals and the country’s opioid epidemic as reasons they support the medical marijuana amendment.

Amy Miller, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, also spoke in favor of the amendment. Miller argued against past opponents of similar legislation stating, “There is strong case law support indicating that Congress has chosen to leave this (issue) up to the states.”

Opposition to the amendment originated from Nebraska’s Director of Public Health, Dr. Thomas Williams, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office, and one local anesthesiologist. They cited a lack of medical marijuana research and the fact that federal law still prohibits the drug’s use.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Post said the amendment would ultimately violate federal laws and stated that “the Legislature should not expose Nebraska in this way.”

Williams echoed Post’s concerns and emphasized the lack of what he considered adequate research.

“There are potential risks for the products,” he said. “Because of the lack of evidential research,” there is no existing standard for therapeutic administration of marijuana.

Committee members Sens. Adam Morfeld and Patty Pansing Brooks, both of Lincoln, and Sen. Bob Krist of Omaha were critical of arguments presented against the bill — arguments they considered tired and contrived.

“My concern is that the opponents of medical marijuana…always point to ‘the lack of research, the lack of research,'” Morfeld said. “But the same advocacy groups that oppose marijuana are the ones that are advocating against actual research, and the ability to have that research on the federal level; it’s a very disingenuous circular argument that I often see.”

I am not a fan of medical marijuana, but find it troubling that the same government that condones the sale of highly addictive and dangerous pharmaceuticals, continues to restrict the use of marijuana. On what grounds? Testing? Those who want/need it now should not have to wait another 30 yrs for government approval. I do not think the government should dictate the kind of treatment an individual chooses. Note: Down the line, when marijuana is legalized (it is inevitable), this same government that now opposes its use, will be the first to call for it to be taxed.

There is no reason why cannabis sativa hasnt been decriminalized….thats right the reason is the lying Nixon administration. Funny though that the govt made marijuana illegal but yet they have the rights for medical marijuana. Medical or recreational its all the same plant.

While I think there may be some benefits to medicinal marijuana products, I couldn’t vote for this proposal. We really need some reputable studies on what it is really beneficial for before we consider using it for medicine. You wouldn’t take a prescription drug that hadn’t gone through extensive testing and trials, why do that with pot. Put something on the ballot authorizing the university to study pot and it’s use compared to existing and new pharmaceutical drugs first. If they can show that marijuana, or products derived from it work better than pharmaceuticals, I’m all for legalizing those specific treatments.

There ARE numerous studies about medical marijuana (CBD- non THC)- seizures being the most commonly observed. Although cannabis has never actually been PROVEN to be reason seizures subside, research suggests it is “very correlated”. However, suppose even IF the plant had no medical purpose, wouldn’t the natural pain killer be reason enough to legalize it for those in medical need? Should we let terminal patients suffer immensely out of stubbornness over a taboo law? I say let it be legalized! Of course, there will be people who abuse the THC-containing version of the drug- but we should not let that hold us back from those who will benefit, and certainly not from those using the non psychoactive version.

I’m talking REPUTABLE studies. I know there are a lot of studies out there done by stoners, pot growers, etc. I want to see impartial studies showing that pot does a better job than pharmaceutical drugs. I’m sure it does in some cases. If we don’t know what it’s good for how do we control it. The system would be rife with abuse. Someone wants to get stoned, they tell their Dr. Their arm hurts, they are anxious, etc. Then people will want insurance to cover it and we will all be paying for people to get high. I’m not against medicinal pot for some treatments, we gotta know what it’s REALLY good for first though.

You might find this article interesting. Teddy’s Rat LabThe author is a neuroscientist/research pharmacologist and science fiction author who teaches at Wake Forest Health. One of his more recent research papers is entitled “Cannabinoids disrupt memory encoding by functionally isolating hippocampal CA1 from CA3.”His views on medical marijuana are very similar to yours, and since he has spent most of his life researching things like cannabinoids and opiods, I trust his opinions far more than “sources” like High Times, etc.

I think that if your going to recognize marijuana as a dangerous drug you have to recognize pharmaceuticals as a dangerous drug. On the same note: I think if you are going to recognize marijuana as a safe alternative; you also have to recognize pharmaceuticals as a safe alternative.

FLAG LEGEND: = No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired. = Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days. = A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days. = The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days. = Banned.